TrueCreation writes: I 'believe' that the earth is in the realm of thousands of years, but based on the science and the inclusion of catastrophism, I could give you a lee-way up to 200k, or maybe even 30k. But I stick with the former, there is little that I know of that is unable to cope.
How is an age of 200,000 years or even just 30,000 years consistent with the Bible? If you accept a young earth because of the Bible, then don't you need to accept an age in the neighborhood of 6,000 years?
Because of Geochemistry and the Earths evolution through time, the bulk of which I logically attribute to the formation of the earths crust and chemical fractionation thereof.
Edge is correct, this is vague. Chemical fractionation could not be much of a factor as most sedimentary layers are extremely stable once buried, unless they descend to a depth deep enough to metamorphose them (and why they are then called metamorphic rock). The same is true of volcanic layers.
Perhaps you're referring to the Creationist proposal of diffusion of argon from the earth's mantle into the crust. If this were true then tilted layers would have older ages with increasing depth, but they don't - the age is consistent across the layer regardless of orientation. We would also see different diffusion rates according to lithospheric thickness. Diffusion also doesn't explain the non-gaseous elements, such as rubidium/strontium and uranium/lead. Some geologic layers are more impervious to diffusion of gases than others, so layers above them would be expected to date unexpectedly young.
But I would attribute an episode of accelerated decay somewhere in the past.
The problems with accelerated decay have been pointed out before. Don't you feel the need to overcome these objections before retaining this in your repertoire? Accelerated decay needs accelerated dissipation of heat, some way to have the rate of decay be a function of geological layer, and some way to protect living organisms from the lethal neutron bombardment. Plus there is no evidence that the laws governing decay have changed. For example, the light from the stars indicates the physical laws we're familiar with today were unchanged thousands, millions and billions of years ago.
I don't think this is the right question, really. A more penetrating question would be if there is evidence that contradicts a young earth...
You've got the cart before the horse again. Science accepts that for which there is evidence. It's not a case of accepting everything for which there is no counterevidence.
Yes, Wmscott, get back to the facts about the 8 foot tall Hopewell people smelting radioactive ores for thousands of years. Have fun with the kookaburra, I'm sure he'll prove a valuable source of tektites.
I pondered on this before posting that message and finally decided that being respectful and suffering fools gladly are not the same thing. I don't know what's funnier, Watson's ridiculous posts or you seriously replying to them. I'm sure you and Watson will be very happy together.
I understand the forum guidelines, but when I signed up I agreed to show respect for fellow members, not suffer fools gladly. You want to make EvC Forum a site where serious discussion is possible, but if by enforcing your guidelines you make EvC Forum a haven for fools then don't you discourage participation by those most interested in and capable of serious discussion?
This is the responsibility of you and the other admins . This is supposedly a science site, one where Creationists try to make the case that not only is Creationism science, but that it is a better model than evolution. Since this is a science site, and since science is guided by evidence, the fools are those who are instead guided by inclination and interest at the expense of evidence.
I think you have to have some standards. This week it's 8-foot tall Hopewell Indians and Atlantis, next week it could be aliens and pyramid power. Is this the level of dialogue you what here?
The quality of an advocated position, if it is science, is a function of the supporting evidence, and the quality of the treatment accorded it should also be proportional to its evidence.
That being said, perhaps I did step over the bounds by deriding the person rather than the position. Perhaps I should have been referring to foolish positions rather than fools.
Hi, Watson! I'm happy see you're still here. Sorry to give you a hard time.
People who have been here a while already know that Percy and Admin are the same person. It's on my list of things to do to get the admin names posted visibly somewhere, but I'm up to my ears in other improvements right now. I'll take this opportunity to alphabetically list the administrators:
Admin: Percipient (evolutionist) Adminaquility: Tranquility Base (Creationist) Adminnemooseus: minnemooseus (evolutionst)
I took the opportunity presented by your posts to try to publicize some of the issues the admins wrestle with. No one posted a response, so most likely they all thought Percy had finally flipped (and who knows, maybe I have ).
Thanks for the offers of information, but most of it would be off-topic for this thread. Feel free to open new threads if you'd like to kick off a discussion about any of them. I think the question you were asking Wmscott, before I interrupted, was whether the smelting of radioactive metal ores by native Americans would affect the radiometric dating of their bones, and I agree with Wmscott's answer that it would not, though not through the same line of reasoning. Organic material is dated via radiocarbon dating, not radiometric metal dating. Even had they ingested huge amounts of radioactive metals that became incorporated into their bones, it wouldn't affect the dating of the carbon by modern techniques (AMS - Accelerator Mass Spectrometry).
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-17-2003]